Predict the rule changes

#name?

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
210
I am a casual viewer of rugby and only watch the world cups. I have to say I wasn't impressed. There seems to be too much emphasis on kicking when IMO it should be placed running and scoring tries.

The huge rule book makes the sport difficult to officiate and difficult for the casual viewer to pick up. The rules should be streamlined to encourage running rugby.

Here are my suggestions to improve the game
1. Remove the scrum.
The scrum slows down the game and it seems no one has a clue what's happening including the refs.

2. Decrease the number of players.
The field is heavily congested, reducing room to run.

3. Kicking back and forth must stop. Who enjoys that anyway? When a kicked ball is caught before it bounces play must restart where the kick took place.

4. More substitutions.
Under these rules the game would faster and thus more taxing on players, so allowing players to go off then on again would help. Perhaps a system similar to basketball would i.e. Teams get 6 timeouts where they can sub players as they please.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
18,025
Wow...

Why dont you just play with a round ball and call it soccer?

I think the game is fine as is, but I think the TV ref needs to be more involved and point out bad decisions. It should happen sooner rather than after the game. Thats pretty much the only problem with the game - inconsistent reffing.

I dont think kicking has been used all that effectively, since it normally gives away possession without gaining that much territory, but I dont see a need to restrict teams from doing it. If they want to do it, thats fine. It can make for a VERY exciting game if a back intercepts the ball and scores a try with it, which does happen from time to time.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
Er, just watch sevens rugby if this is what you're after. Scrums are integral to the game - it's just the IRB complicating the issue to give the ref more control (influence). They use the excuse that it make the scrums safer but I cannot see how this is the case as we still suffer from collapsed scrums to this day. We need to sort out the "touch, pause, engage" delays and reduce the binding infringement rules on the front rows.

Regarding reduction of player numbers, I find that a silly notion. Sevens rugby exists for the reasons you want it introduced. Test rugby is not all about running. It's about closely-fought battles in the forwards who then in turn create opportunities for the backline to run at the defence, spread the ball to the wings, kick tactically for territory gains (and then rely on your forwards again for the most part) etc. Positional play is integral to create opportunities to run more at the defence.

More substitutions? Why? Having back up for key positions is sufficient. This isn't NFL where you need a separate team for each aspect of play. This is rugby ffs. If the players cannot play a full game of rugby then they should already be on the bench or alternatively on a beach in the south of France somewhere.

My predictions for rule changes are that the tight forwards will be policed even heavier which is counter-productive. Especially at scrum time.

I reckon the breakdown will be enforced more closely and the gaps in northern vs southern hemisphere teams/refs will be bridged.

The touch, pause, engage will be lengthened once again, which I completely disagree with.

TV refs will be allowed more leeway in what they are allowed to rule on. No longer will the on-field ref be able to limit the call, however how they go about doing this will be interesting as the TV ref surely can't move play back 10 phases...
 

Cicero

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
2,286
Wow...

Why dont you just play with a round ball and call it soccer?

I think the game is fine as is, but I think the TV ref needs to be more involved and point out bad decisions. It should happen sooner rather than after the game. Thats pretty much the only problem with the game - inconsistent reffing.

I dont think kicking has been used all that effectively, since it normally gives away possession without gaining that much territory, but I dont see a need to restrict teams from doing it. If they want to do it, thats fine. It can make for a VERY exciting game if a back intercepts the ball and scores a try with it, which does happen from time to time.
Exactly what I was thinking. That's like a completely different game.

Hahahahaha.
 

dlevine

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
866
Wish they would allow players to kick out from inside your 22m line, no matter if ball carried over or not. Like it used to be. This new rule is KAK.
 

Devill

Damned
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
26,821
I am a casual viewer of rugby and only watch the world cups. I have to say I wasn't impressed. There seems to be too much emphasis on kicking when IMO it should be placed running and scoring tries.

The huge rule book makes the sport difficult to officiate and difficult for the casual viewer to pick up. The rules should be streamlined to encourage running rugby.

Here are my suggestions to improve the game
1. Remove the scrum.
The scrum slows down the game and it seems no one has a clue what's happening including the refs.

2. Decrease the number of players.
The field is heavily congested, reducing room to run.

3. Kicking back and forth must stop. Who enjoys that anyway? When a kicked ball is caught before it bounces play must restart where the kick took place.

4. More substitutions.
Under these rules the game would faster and thus more taxing on players, so allowing players to go off then on again would help. Perhaps a system similar to basketball would i.e. Teams get 6 timeouts where they can sub players as they please.

If this is what you are looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league
 

#name?

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
210
Here's what I don't get about rugby fans. You guys dont want the rules to be changed even though the refs struggle to officiate a game, but then when the ref makes misses something important you will whinge ad nauseum.

Anyway I've seen a few vids of rugby league and the sport looks quite entertaining. I enjoy the contests for possession -except the scrum- in rugby. The two sports have a lot to learn from each other and merging would benefit them both.
 

mdoggie

Active Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
37
You really should just switch rugby codes to league if you want to see those changes. You could probably even make the SA Rugby league team, all you need to do is show up :p

There needs to be something done with the breakdowns, no idea what though. There is way too much inconsistency with the ruling of the breakdown. I don't envy the people who need to make the decisions....

The touch, pause, engage will be lengthened once again, which I completely disagree with.
I agree with your disagreement. It should probably be shortened, made more similar to the old days where is was pretty much just engage. It will take out the importance of the hit but at least we would have scrums not folding every time, and less questionable scrum penalties.
 

#name?

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
210
Er, just watch sevens rugby if this is what you're after. Scrums are integral to the game - it's just the IRB complicating the issue to give the ref more control (influence). They use the excuse that it make the scrums safer but I cannot see how this is the case as we still suffer from collapsed scrums to this day. We need to sort out the "touch, pause, engage" delays and reduce the binding infringement rules on the front rows.

It seems that you want to keep the scrum just because it's always been there. From what I've seen, one scrum is redone three or four times then the ref gives a penalty that the commentator often don't agree with.

Regarding reduction of player numbers, I find that a silly notion. Sevens rugby exists for the reasons you want it introduced. Test rugby is not all about running. It's about closely-fought battles in the forwards who then in turn create opportunities for the backline to run at the defence, spread the ball to the wings, kick tactically for territory gains (and then rely on your forwards again for the most part) etc. Positional play is integral to create opportunities to run more at the defence.

Sevens is too fast, rugby is too slow, there is a middle ground here. 12 or 13 players per team. Test rugby should be about entertaining, running rugby because those are the games casuals like me might watch. You don't want potential fans to watch a game with dozens of collapsed scrums and plenty of back-and-forth kicking. Look the occasional good kick can be exciting but sitting through a long period of consecutive kicks is dull.

More substitutions? Why? Having back up for key positions is sufficient. This isn't NFL where you need a separate team for each aspect of play. This is rugby ffs. If the players cannot play a full game of rugby then they should already be on the bench or alternatively on a beach in the south of France somewhere.

As I said a faster game will be more taxing on the players and more subs might be necessary. More subs may also provide another tactical facet for the game.
.
 

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,571
Odd i always see the nzers finding plenty room to run.

Scrums you can't remove but they have done well in removing the 5-8 resets that i recall. Now i see maybe one reset then the ref calls it mostly by guessing. Rugby is awesome the way it is.

The only rule change i would like to see is the game being the same world wide. This northern southern ref shyte is rubbish.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
I want to keep the scrums because they've always been there? Well yes, they're an integral part of the game. That's like arguing for the removal of the catching rule in cricket because you want to see more runs scored. In this case you want to see more tries scored. Unfortunately a game without catches would not resemble cricket, and similarly, a game without scrums would not resemble rugby. And btw, don't pay too much attention to rugby commentators. Eighty minutes of listening to Hugh Bladen and you'll know why.

You say that sevens is too fast and the 15 man format is too slow. Well I personally don't find it slow, for the most part. When last did you see a fifa wc final that was a high scoring thriller? Finals in most sports tend to lean more on defence than offence. In rugby this is emphasised simply due to the nature of the game and how intricately complex the tactical aspect becomes in these games. It sounds to me like you want a new format of the game, much like they did with 20/20 in cricket. Well stay tuned because that is on the cards for rugby. But it won't detract from test rugby from those of us who tend to follow the sport more.

Regarding your substitution proposition: maybe in a different format that might be necessary. Not in test rugby though. It seems to me that you're placing so much emphasis on loose, running rugby that you've completely overlooked the importance of tight play. As the game evolves though, the two are finding more synergy and tend to overlap in roles within the team, so we see more running rugby now than we did before. The ball also stays alive more nowadays and tends to go through more phases too. You'd have fallen asleep when we won it in 2007...:p

But keep the suggestions rolling in. We need to find ways to get more women watching rugby without having to pause and explain why they're not allowed to just throw the ball forward like she's seen them do in the American movies...:D
 

Ronjay

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,467
I am a casual viewer of rugby and only watch the world cups. I have to say I wasn't impressed. There seems to be too much emphasis on kicking when IMO it should be placed running and scoring tries.

The huge rule book makes the sport difficult to officiate and difficult for the casual viewer to pick up. The rules should be streamlined to encourage running rugby.

Here are my suggestions to improve the game
1. Remove the scrum.
The scrum slows down the game and it seems no one has a clue what's happening including the refs.

No way, the scrum is a vital part of the game.

/Shudders.

2. Decrease the number of players.
The field is heavily congested, reducing room to run.

That's called 7's rugby. No thanks.

3. Kicking back and forth must stop. Who enjoys that anyway? When a kicked ball is caught before it bounces play must restart where the kick took place.

I don't like the kicking either. Problem though is that if you do it that way, the game will slow down even more. And also a great kick can change the game. Good kicking can actually be awesome to watch. especially a kick that wins 60m+ in territory.

4. More substitutions.

I agree with this.

I'd also like to see the ruck rule changed to not allowing hands in at all, from anyone, it should only be feet that can "bring the ball back".
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
18,025
Here's what I don't get about rugby fans. You guys dont want the rules to be changed even though the refs struggle to officiate a game, but then when the ref makes misses something important you will whinge ad nauseum.

Anyway I've seen a few vids of rugby league and the sport looks quite entertaining. I enjoy the contests for possession -except the scrum- in rugby. The two sports have a lot to learn from each other and merging would benefit them both.

I dont see how these particular rule changes would help a ref officiate better.

Its also still way more fair and balanced than soccer.
 

APoc184

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
24,249
Maties coach Chean Roux has recommended that they do away with the hit at scrum time.

Should remove the guessing by referees as to who collapsed the scrum.

I don't know about that. I like seeing a prop get the hit and right shoulder.
 

MielieSpoor

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
1,984
Maties coach Chean Roux has recommended that they do away with the hit at scrum time.

Should remove the guessing by referees as to who collapsed the scrum.

I don't know about that. I like seeing a prop get the hit and right shoulder.
The hit will be removed. The hit in the scrum only became part of the game during the modern game. During the 70's/80's the hit weren't part of the game.

The advantage of remove the hit is huge. Firstly you remove the risk of injury (happens a lot). Secondly you give your front rows the opportunity to bind properly according to law. Thirdly, the scrum will return to what the law states it should be - to restart play in a safe manner. The scrum was never intended to kill your oponent prop or break his neck, but only to restart the game in a safe manner.

Removing the hit will reduce the number of penalties in a game by atleast 4 or 5 and take away resets.

There are more but this is the one the people are going to moan the most about.

Last thing. They plan on a law book for professional rugby and amateur rugby, I don't actually know what happened to this.
 
Last edited:

dlevine

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
866
LEt the props put their outside hands onto the floor to keep themselves up.
 

MielieSpoor

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
1,984
LEt the props put their outside hands onto the floor to keep themselves up.
No. This causes his shoulders to go below his hips which causes a displacement in balance which result in the scrum going down. There is a very good reason this is not allowed - were not trying to be funny.

Remember, its not just about his own balance, but that of his oposition. If he pushes his oposition down because his hand is on the ground he can cause the oposition prop to go down. Also not being bound causes the scrum to not be stable and can cause it to go down (most of the times). Not being bound can also cause the prop to change scrum direction and scrum in onto the hooker, or can cause the prop to scrum up.

So yes, there is method in the madnes into why props need to be bound and are penalised if not. That is why they want to take away the hit, because then the prop can properly bind, have his angel straight forward, hips in line, spine inline and we can scrum.
 
Last edited:

Guantanamo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,855
The rules need to be simplified. There are 34 possible infringements at a line out before a ball has been thrown. It is too complicated to ref and that leads to a whole lot of kak. Other than that I think the rules are fine as is.
 

Ronjay

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,467
The rules need to be simplified. There are 34 possible infringements at a line out before a ball has been thrown. It is too complicated to ref and that leads to a whole lot of kak. Other than that I think the rules are fine as is.

Look at the ruck. The tackler is not allowed to play the ball at all, the tackled player must be allowed to place the ball back, an arriving player may pick up the ball though, if a ruck has not formed. A ruck is formed if a player from either side joins and binds on to each other or the players on the ground. If a ruck is formed then there must be no hands in the ruck and contest for the ball can only be done with the foot and only if the player is standing. Seems simple enough, doesn't it? Ha, it can become a mine field of poor interpretation, incorrect decisions, miscommunication and as has been shown by a certain NZ referee ignorance or bias. If they returned to the old rules of no hands at all, any time the ball is on the floor in a tackle situation and needs to be secured by foot only, I think it would make it a lot less of a problem. Too many variables in the rules, I'm afraid, are spoiling the continuity of the game.
 

Ronjay

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,467
No. This causes his shoulders to go below his hips which causes a displacement in balance which result in the scrum going down. There is a very good reason this is not allowed - were not trying to be funny.

Remember, its not just about his own balance, but that of his oposition. If he pushes his oposition down because his hand is on the ground he can cause the oposition prop to go down. Also not being bound causes the scrum to not be stable and can cause it to go down (most of the times). Not being bound can also cause the prop to change scrum direction and scrum in onto the hooker, or can cause the prop to scrum up.

So yes, there is method in the madnes into why props need to be bound and are penalised if not. That is why they want to take away the hit, because then the prop can properly bind, have his angel straight forward, hips in line, spine inline and we can scrum.

Yeah, except that some props scrum inward as a deliberate tactic. And the problem is that many refs don't have a clue what is going on. Anyway, I like the hit. A scrum with out it would be, well, soft, for want of a better term. ;)
 
Top